Ranger - Twin Strike kick to the groin?

[Mal Malenkirk]

Already covered. Shields and greatswords are too heavy to qualify for a 1 handed improvised weapon.

That thread started with feet. Twin kick to the groin.

So if you agree that feet qualify as distinct weapon for the purpose of that power, a guy with a shield, a sword and two feet could make the same claim.

 

[Zurai]

That thread started with feet. Twin kick to the groin.

So if you agree that feet qualify as distinct weapon for the purpose of that power, a guy with a shield, a sword and two feet could make the same claim.

For the power? Yes. That's not a problem because it's decidedly weak. You'd do more damage with the sword with a basic attack.

For the two-weapon fighting feats? No, because they require you to be holding a weapon in each hand.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

For the power? Yes. That's not a problem because it's decidedly weak. You'd do more damage with the sword with a basic attack.

For the two-weapon fighting feats? No, because they require you to be holding a weapon in each hand.

The power and the feat have the same requirement. Two weapons.

And it's not that weak because of hunter's quarry. Even he's down to needing a 16 to hit, this will give him about 44% odds of delievering 1D4+1d6 instead of 25% of delivering 1d4 + STR (Which he likely has at +1 at best). Neither is very good, but option 1 is far superior.

If an opponent bothered to corner the archer against a wall, it's to make him vulnerable. I have no problem deprieving a PC of any viable option if he got cornered, didn't choose appropriate evasion powers or his otherwise incapable of leaving. Let his friends bail him out and next time, try not to get cornered.

 

[Zurai]

The power and the feat have the same requirement. Two weapons.

Incorrect, and, again, already covered in the thread. The power requires you to wield two melee weapons. The feat requires you to hold two melee weapons. The feat thus cannot be used unarmed, and cannot be used with a shield as an improvised weapon because it is a 2h improvised weapon.

And it's not that weak because of hunter's quarry. Even he's down to needing a 16 to hit, this will give him about 44% odds of delievering 1D4+1d6 instead of 25% of delivering 1d4 + STR (Which he likely has at +1 at best). Neither is very good, but option 1 is far superior.

Let's assume a level 1 ranger with 12 strength vs an enemy with 16 AC. We'll compare longsword vs unarmed. With a longsword, he has a single +4 vs AC for 1d8+1d6+1 damage. That's an expected damage of 3.6. With an unarmed Twin Strike, he has two +1 vs AC attacks for 1d4 damage and an extra 1d6 if one of the attacks manages to land. That's 2.78 expected damage.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

In 4e, all characters are monks.

Yes, all classes now have some measure of multiple ability dependency...

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Incorrect, and, again, already covered in the thread. The power requires you to wield two melee weapons. The feat requires you to hold two melee weapons.

Say that aloud a few time. Shouldn't be long before you feel silly.

The feat thus cannot be used unarmed, and cannot be used with a shield as an improvised weapon because it is a 2h improvised weapon.

I know. And neither can the twin strike power. That's my point.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Say that aloud a few time. Shouldn't be long before you feel silly.



I know. And neither can the twin strike power. That's my point.

There is a clear distinction between wielding something and holding something. You cant hold your own hand in that very same hand, however it makes sense that you could wield your hand as a weapon.

 

[Zurai]

I know. And neither can the twin strike power. That's my point.

Wielding is not the same as holding. Wielding a weapon, in 4E terms, is attacking with it. Thus, you can wield an unarmed strike. You cannot, however, hold an unarmed strike in your hand.

 

[ryryguy]

First of all, a bow cannot be used as an improvised melee weapon as suggested upthread. PHB p 215, "You can't use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon."

Next, I think by the letter of the rules, you can't use Twin Strike when you are unarmed, because the unarmed "weapon" does not have the off hand property. So you can't be considered to be using(*) two weapons to satisfy the requirement of the power. If the unarmed weapon had the off hand property it would be allowed.

In a recent WotC article on making 4e conversions of 3e characters without official classes, the author (Mearls?) recommended the monk conversion, built on ranger, get a feature granting (among other things) the off hand property to his unarmed attack, pretty much expressly to allow use of unarmed in conjunction with Twin Strike, aka Flurry of Blows.)

In the end, I think allowing that ranger to attack with two kicks or a kick and a punch, would pretty much be ok, as would be letting him use the bow as an improvised weapon. It's a subpar option that wouldn't break anything, and might be good for some drama and fun in many games.

[D]A[/D]
* - I say "using" instead of "wield" or "hold". I think those terms are a distinction without a difference as far as the rules go. I read all three as equivalent terms.

This is what the off-hand property grants:

PHB 217
Off-hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in your main hand.

PHB 215 (end of Weapon Categories)
Some one-handed weapons are light enough for you to use in your off hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your other hand.

And "wielding":

PHB 56
Weapon: Many martial powers... can be used only if you're wielding a weapon. (You can use an unarmed attack as your weapon.)

Wield = Use = Hold = Able to attack with . It's all the same as far as the rules. (Yes, you can make a distinction that you cannot "hold" an unarmed attack, but that is a semantic distinction not relevant to the rules. I could make a case that I can hold a greataxe in one hand, clumsily, and not be able to attack with it... but would I be "holding" it to satisfy the Two-Weapon feats?)

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You cant hold your own hand in that very same hand, however it makes sense that you could wield your hand as a weapon.

No, it doesn't make sense. Not by any definition of the word wield I have ever seen.

Go see your elementary english school teacher and tell her you are 'wielding your hand'. She'll be very proud. Add that you are 'dual-wielding your feet'. You'll give her a stroke.

The power state that you must be wielding two melee weapons and I'll never accept two feet as meeting that requirement!

At best I can accept your whole body as one weapon. That's it.